Interpretation of Clinical Retinal Images Using an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To assess the performance of ChatGPT-4 in providing accurate diagnoses to retina teaching cases from OCTCases. Design Cross-sectional study. Subjects Retina teaching cases from OCTCases. Methods We prompted a custom chatbot with 69 retina cases containing multimodal ophthalmic images, asking it to provide the most likely diagnosis. In a sensitivity analysis, we inputted increasing amounts of clinical information pertaining to each case until the chatbot achieved a correct diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regressions on Stata v17.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas) to investigate associations between the amount of text-based information inputted per prompt and the odds of the chatbot achieving a correct diagnosis, adjusting for the laterality of cases, number of ophthalmic images inputted, and imaging modalities. Main Outcome Measures Our primary outcome was the proportion of cases for which the chatbot was able to provide a correct diagnosis. Our secondary outcome was the chatbot's performance in relation to the amount of text-based information accompanying ophthalmic images. Results Across 69 retina cases collectively containing 139 ophthalmic images, the chatbot was able to provide a definitive, correct diagnosis for 35 (50.7%) cases. The chatbot needed variable amounts of clinical information to achieve a correct diagnosis, where the entire patient description as presented by OCTCases was required for a majority of correctly diagnosed cases (23/35 cases, 65.7%). Relative to when the chatbot was only prompted with a patient's age and sex, the chatbot achieved a higher odds of a correct diagnosis when prompted with an entire patient description (OR=10.1, 95%CI=[3.3, 30.3], p<0.01). Despite providing an incorrect diagnosis for 34 (49.3%) cases, the chatbot listed the correct diagnosis within its differential diagnosis for 7 (20.6%) of these incorrectly answered cases. Conclusions This custom chatbot was able to accurately diagnose approximately half of the retina cases requiring multimodal input, albeit relying heavily on text-based contextual information that accompanied ophthalmic images. The diagnostic ability of the chatbot in interpretation of multimodal imaging without text-based information is currently limited. The appropriate use of the chatbot in this setting is of utmost importance, given bioethical concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".